Conquer Club

I am 0-0 versus the bots. I see no reason to play them as I currently don't need the boost in self esteem. If i want an easy victory, i just play some 1 v 1 against other players

1 v 1 record versus other players....116-30...79.4% win percentage....best is a 16 game winning streak.

maybe i should play some bot games and see if they are better or worse than real players?

ChrisPond wrote:I am 0-0 versus the bots. I see no reason to play them as I currently don't need the boost in self esteem. If i want an easy victory, i just play some 1 v 1 against other players

1 v 1 record versus other players....116-30...79.4% win percentage....best is a 16 game winning streak.

maybe i should play some bot games and see if they are better or worse than real players?

how on earth would beating the bot be a boost in self esteem or a way to get easy (but not counting) victories? everyone stops after 200 wins, guess why?

betiko wrote:

ChrisPond wrote:I am 0-0 versus the bots. I see no reason to play them as I currently don't need the boost in self esteem. If i want an easy victory, i just play some 1 v 1 against other players

1 v 1 record versus other players....116-30...79.4% win percentage....best is a 16 game winning streak.

maybe i should play some bot games and see if they are better or worse than real players?

how on earth would beating the bot be a boost in self esteem or a way to get easy (but not counting) victories? everyone stops after 200 wins, guess why?

you did start a list to show how good you were at beating the bots correct? maybe you are right though? it seems there are not to many people volunteering their record against bots. maybe anything less than a 98 or 99% win percentage against the bots is nothing to brag about?

ChrisPond wrote:

betiko wrote:

ChrisPond wrote:I am 0-0 versus the bots. I see no reason to play them as I currently don't need the boost in self esteem. If i want an easy victory, i just play some 1 v 1 against other players

1 v 1 record versus other players....116-30...79.4% win percentage....best is a 16 game winning streak.

maybe i should play some bot games and see if they are better or worse than real players?

how on earth would beating the bot be a boost in self esteem or a way to get easy (but not counting) victories? everyone stops after 200 wins, guess why?

you did start a list to show how good you were at beating the bots correct? maybe you are right though? it seems there are not to many people volunteering their record against bots. maybe anything less than a 98 or 99% win percentage against the bots is nothing to brag about?

Nope you didn t get what originated this thread and its purpose. Agentcom was saying in a bug report topic something related to the bots, I don t remember what. He then said that it was very embarassing because he had just lost a game vs whambot after 114 wins straight or something. I was telling him that given how BS the dice can be sometimes, everybody HAS to lose vs whambot no matter how bad he is. Not losing ever is being exceptionally lucky. Agentcom wasn t agreeing with me so he started this thread to have a better idea of what are good stats and what are average stats vs bots.
Also a good way to see how win rates drop depending on the bot level.

ChrisPond wrote:

betiko wrote:

ChrisPond wrote:I am 0-0 versus the bots. I see no reason to play them as I currently don't need the boost in self esteem. If i want an easy victory, i just play some 1 v 1 against other players

1 v 1 record versus other players....116-30...79.4% win percentage....best is a 16 game winning streak.

maybe i should play some bot games and see if they are better or worse than real players?

how on earth would beating the bot be a boost in self esteem or a way to get easy (but not counting) victories? everyone stops after 200 wins, guess why?

you did start a list to show how good you were at beating the bots correct? maybe you are right though? it seems there are not to many people volunteering their record against bots. maybe anything less than a 98 or 99% win percentage against the bots is nothing to brag about?

Winning percentage would also have to do with map selection. If you choose the simple/small maps like USA West or Golfe Du Saint-Laurent then you are going to lose around 5% of your games due to dice/drops. If you play the bigger maps you win percentage will increase as the effects of bad dice take longer to affect the game. The bots play horrible but still win. I play only the small maps and I think I have won 107 out of 114 games.

loutil wrote:

ChrisPond wrote:

betiko wrote:

ChrisPond wrote:I am 0-0 versus the bots. I see no reason to play them as I currently don't need the boost in self esteem. If i want an easy victory, i just play some 1 v 1 against other players

1 v 1 record versus other players....116-30...79.4% win percentage....best is a 16 game winning streak.

maybe i should play some bot games and see if they are better or worse than real players?

how on earth would beating the bot be a boost in self esteem or a way to get easy (but not counting) victories? everyone stops after 200 wins, guess why?

you did start a list to show how good you were at beating the bots correct? maybe you are right though? it seems there are not to many people volunteering their record against bots. maybe anything less than a 98 or 99% win percentage against the bots is nothing to brag about?

Winning percentage would also have to do with map selection. If you choose the simple/small maps like USA West or Golfe Du Saint-Laurent then you are going to lose around 5% of your games due to dice/drops. If you play the bigger maps you win percentage will increase as the effects of bad dice take longer to affect the game. The bots play horrible but still win. I play only the small maps and I think I have won 107 out of 114 games.

Very true. There was a bot tournament just when they were launched, and we had to play all maps available in bot mode winning them all straight. It was very scary each time you had to play a small map!
This is a bit like always betting on the ultra favorite. After many games, there has to be a surprise with the underdog winning... And whambot is a freaking huge underdog!

ChrisPond wrote:
you did start a list to show how good you were at beating the bots correct? maybe you are right though? it seems there are not to many people volunteering their record against bots. maybe anything less than a 98 or 99% win percentage against the bots is nothing to brag about?

I believe that you're correct that a 98% win percentage is not terribly impressive on a decent-sized map like Classic. But as betiko points out, the intent of this thread wasn't entirely for bragging rights, and any bragging is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It was to see whether my experience was normal among decent players. While I suspect that some people who chose not to post had lower scores, it does appear that it's pretty easy to get 100+ consecutive victories and well above 95% win percentage against the bot. Loutil points out that win percentage stays above 95% even when playing the most luck-driven maps.

It might be a good idea to go ahead and get your bot medals now because if the programmer is serious he can easily bring the bot up to expert level in a short period of time. Once again I reference chess and backgammon. If one waits until that happens then it will be almost impossible for the average player to get any more bot medals.

How do you guys know these stats is there an add on tool or just something on this site I am not aware of?

bird45 wrote:How do you guys know these stats is there an add on tool or just something on this site I am not aware of?

nope just use game finder against the specific bot you want... and count your losses (if you're not sure you stopped at 200 wins exactly), the amount of games played is written on top of the page. if you don't have any bot medal it's even easier, just look on your medal stats, it will give you the amount of wins you have.

premio53 wrote:It might be a good idea to go ahead and get your bot medals now because if the programmer is serious he can easily bring the bot up to expert level in a short period of time. Once again I reference chess and backgammon. If one waits until that happens then it will be almost impossible for the average player to get any more bot medals.

what are you talking about?
People here wish the bots were challenging, it's extremely boring to play them. and how on earth would it be almost impossible to get the bot medal if they put some very good bots? whambot is the perfect exmple to show that anyone can beat anyone if dice want to, and he just randomly attacks, drops and forts. you are not making any sense.

betiko wrote:

premio53 wrote:It might be a good idea to go ahead and get your bot medals now because if the programmer is serious he can easily bring the bot up to expert level in a short period of time. Once again I reference chess and backgammon. If one waits until that happens then it will be almost impossible for the average player to get any more bot medals.

what are you talking about?
People here wish the bots were challenging, it's extremely boring to play them. and how on earth would it be almost impossible to get the bot medal if they put some very good bots? whambot is the perfect exmple to show that anyone can beat anyone if dice want to, and he just randomly attacks, drops and forts. you are not making any sense.

Backgammon uses dice also but the top Backgammon programs will beat 99% of all backgammon players in the world 99% of the time in a match. Most people say GnuBackgammon and others cheat with the dice but there is a manual mode which allows someone to physically roll a pair of dice and the results are the same. I have no idea who programmed the bots here but I believe if they continue to work on Sassbot it won't be long before the average player will have a hard time beating it.

If you have any question about that play GnuBackgammon a few 5 point matches and see what percentage of wins it has. It is a free program.

Please tell me CC doesn't give credit for points and wins against bots.

I don t play backgammon, but I think that my example is much more meaningfull, since you are comparing apple and oranges.
It is impossible to beat in 1v1 99% of the time someone with basic risk skills, no matter the risk god or super powerfull program you are.
It is extremely unlikely, or extremely lucky to have a 100% win rate over whambot, and whambot has no risk basic skills. And by basic skills i m talking about stuff even that a lobotomized zombie would do.

betiko wrote:I don t play backgammon, but I think that my example is much more meaningfull, since you are comparing apple and oranges.
It is impossible to beat in 1v1 99% of the time someone with basic risk skills, no matter the risk god or super powerfull program you are.
It is extremely unlikely, or extremely lucky to have a 100% win rate over whambot, and whambot has no risk basic skills. And by basic skills i m talking about stuff even that a lobotomized zombie would do.

The reason backgammon programs win 99% of the time is they know perfect dice probability with strategy built in. On very simple maps such as Doodle Earth and a few others the bot would have maybe a lesser advantage but on most maps a program could be made where only the strongest players would give it much competition. Backgammon proves that some dice games are much more than pure luck. I would include Conquer Club maps in that category.

I still think it would be great to allow other programmers to submit different bots and allow them to compete for the strongest player. They could still limit bot play to not counting against humans just as it is now.

premio53 wrote:

betiko wrote:I don t play backgammon, but I think that my example is much more meaningfull, since you are comparing apple and oranges.
It is impossible to beat in 1v1 99% of the time someone with basic risk skills, no matter the risk god or super powerfull program you are.
It is extremely unlikely, or extremely lucky to have a 100% win rate over whambot, and whambot has no risk basic skills. And by basic skills i m talking about stuff even that a lobotomized zombie would do.

The reason backgammon programs win 99% of the time is they know perfect dice probability with strategy built in. On very simple maps such as Doodle Earth and a few others the bot would have maybe a lesser advantage but on most maps a program could be made where only the strongest players would give it much competition. Backgammon proves that some dice games are much more than pure luck. I would include Conquer Club maps in that category.

I still think it would be great to allow other programmers to submit different bots and allow them to compete for the strongest player. They could still limit bot play to not counting against humans just as it is now.

Any good player on this site considers all options to play a given turn and their odds to succeed. Nevertheless, it is impossible to calculate like in a chess game as there is an X factor, and some 95% shots can be failed.
The maps you can play against bots are all simple maps. I guarantee that it is impossible for the best player on the site to beat at a 99% rate the worse player on the site on a simple map with no freestyle.

betiko wrote:

premio53 wrote:

betiko wrote:I don t play backgammon, but I think that my example is much more meaningfull, since you are comparing apple and oranges.
It is impossible to beat in 1v1 99% of the time someone with basic risk skills, no matter the risk god or super powerfull program you are.
It is extremely unlikely, or extremely lucky to have a 100% win rate over whambot, and whambot has no risk basic skills. And by basic skills i m talking about stuff even that a lobotomized zombie would do.

The reason backgammon programs win 99% of the time is they know perfect dice probability with strategy built in. On very simple maps such as Doodle Earth and a few others the bot would have maybe a lesser advantage but on most maps a program could be made where only the strongest players would give it much competition. Backgammon proves that some dice games are much more than pure luck. I would include Conquer Club maps in that category.

I still think it would be great to allow other programmers to submit different bots and allow them to compete for the strongest player. They could still limit bot play to not counting against humans just as it is now.

Any good player on this site considers all options to play a given turn and their odds to succeed. Nevertheless, it is impossible to calculate like in a chess game as there is an X factor, and some 95% shots can be failed.
The maps you can play against bots are all simple maps. I guarantee that it is impossible for the best player on the site to beat at a 99% rate the worse player on the site on a simple map with no freestyle.

I don't dispute that settings would play a part but Backgammon is a pretty simple game. It is the strategy plus the perfect dice probability that make backgammon programs so formidable. I don't see how most Conquer Clubs maps would be much different when it comes to programming a bot with dice probabability and strategy. Why not let some of the programmers that play on this site compete for the strongest bot? It would draw a lot of interest to say the least.

That could be very interesting, love the idea. Let s say that for the bot level 4, a competition is made between programmers. Random map/settings. Since the games would be between bots the results would be immediate. So you could make them face each other hundreads of times. The winner would give his name to bot level 4.

betiko wrote:That could be very interesting, love the idea. Let s say that for the bot level 4, a competition is made between programmers. Random map/settings. Since the games would be between bots the results would be immediate. So you could make them face each other hundreads of times. The winner would give his name to bot level 4.

I don't think the results would be immediate. Even the Backgammon programs play stronger when given more time - ie., set to a higher level.

I'm currently 65-0 against whamBot.

chapcrap wrote:I'm currently 65-0 against whamBot.

Your mother must be proud of you.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I'm currently 65-0 against whamBot.

Your mother must be proud of you.

She doesn't know I'm a master botter.

chapcrap wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I'm currently 65-0 against whamBot.

Your mother must be proud of you.

She doesn't know I'm a master botter.

You are still a padawan though

BigBallinStalin wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I'm currently 65-0 against whamBot.

Your mother must be proud of you.

Wow another entry! This thread almost instantly turned into a discussion about bots in general, but your name has been added to the leaderboard.

There are some really impressive scores in the prior pages. I don't even have a single victory. Those bots are shutting me out. To all those winning a lot of bot games, keep up the excellent work, soon you will be rewarded. CC is replacing "Most Improved" leader board with bot leader board.